Disposed

M.Ramachandran v. the Director of

Madras HC27 Nov 2024CRL OP/28283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to complete DVAC investigation into a complaint against a village Panchayat President and Secretary under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court suo motu impleaded the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and directed him to decide on Section 17A approval within one month, failing which departmental action would follow.

What did the court decide?

Direction to third respondent to consider Section 17A approval within one month; if not complied, investigation to proceed per law.

M.Ramachandran Vs the Director of — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 27.11.2024

¶4

CORAM : MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶6

M.Ramachandran ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption No.293, MKN Road Alandur Chennai 600 016

¶9

2.The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Ranipet District

¶10

3.Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Panagal Building Chennai 600 015 (R3 suomotu impleaded by this Court vide its order dated 27.11.2024) ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation based on the petitioner's complaint dated 26.10.2023 as early as possible.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Krishnan For Respondent : Mr.K.K.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner herein has preferred a complaint against the Panchayat President and Secretary of Itchiputhur Village in Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District, which appears to make out a case U/s.13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has now requires a direction to the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in the matter.

¶18

2.Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) on instruction makes a statement that since the nature of the accusation requires the approval U/s.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the complaint has been forwarded to the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj on 26.04.2024 and the papers are pending before him.

¶19

3.Section 17A of the Act mandates that the authority to whom any such request is made by the investigating agency for approval shall have a total period of four (4) months to consider. No authority who is under a statutory obligation to perform his duty shall hold investigation process to ransom and

¶20

this Court expects every authority who is enjoying with the duty to approve shall act swiftly.

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶24

4.Since the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj is not a party to this proceeding, this Court suo motu impleads him as a 3rd respondent and Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) takes notice for the newly impleaded 3rd respondent. Even though, this Court can now give a go ahead to consider the complaint on its face, since there is an obvious and apparent failure to discharge the duty by the 3rd respondent in terms of 17A of the Act, still this Court does not intend doing it for the present for experience informs the Court that these authorities have not been adequately sensitized about the seriousness and the significance of complying with Section 17A of the Act.

¶25

5.This Court, therefore, directs the 3rd respondent to bestow his best care to the nature of the complaint before him and apply his mind to all the necessary facts before making his decision as to whether the complaint deserves an approval for investigation. The 3^rd respondent is informed that Section 17A of the Act is intended to save an honest public servant from victimization. The objective of the provision will fail if those on whom the responsibility lies fails its working. If after one (1) month from today the 3/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶28

authority does not take any conscious step, then the papers are directed to be placed to the Secretary, Rural Development and he is required to take necessary action against the 3rd respondent departmentally. In addition, the Secretary, Rural Development is also required to sensitize the authority on the scope and need to comply with Section 17A of the Act.

¶29

6.This Criminal Original Petition is accordingly disposed of. If however this order is not complied within a period of one (1) month from today, the respondents 1 and 2 are required to act on the said complaint as per law.

¶30

27.11.2024

¶31

kas Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation Note: Issue order copy on 28.11.2024 To 1.The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption No.293, MKN Road Alandur Chennai 600 016

¶32

4/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Ranipet District

¶36

3.Directorate of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Panagal Building Chennai 600 015

¶37

4.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104

¶38

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶40

N.SESHASAYEE, J. kas

¶41

CRL.O.P.No.28283 of 2024

¶42

27.11.2024

¶43

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Ramachandran v. the Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ramachandran v. the Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Baskar Naidu, M/62 Years Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Sivagami Vs State Represented by

K.Ramalinga Jothi Vs the Inspector of Police

Sethurathnam Ravi Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Ganapathi Vs State Rep by

L.Jagannathh Vs State of Tamilnadu